ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Using Biomechanical Devices in Elite Baseball Pitchers: A Preliminary Feasibility Study.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Biomechanical Devices in Collegiate Baseball Pitchers and Training Staff: A Qualitative Study.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Baseball clinicians, coaches, and players have sought to leverage biomechanical devices to inform training and prevent injury. However, discerning feasibility is sparse for novel biomechanical devices to inform adoption of these technologies. The objective of this study was to investigate the uptake (i.e., proportion of initial use) and adherence (i.e., proportion of continued use) of wearable and portable biomechanical devices among collegiate baseball pitchers during a single summer training season. Methods: Uptake, adherence and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for a commercially available biomechanical pitching sleeve during practice, and use of a force plate during a countermovement jump task for a minimum of one time per week per the established protocol. Potential non-response bias analyses were assessed descriptively by comparing medical history, clinical measures, and pitching patterns among athletes that continued and discontinued using the biomechanical devices. Results: Twenty-two pitchers participated. The uptake for initiating force plate use was 0.32 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.55); uptake for the pitching sleeve was 0.55 (0.32, 0.76). Adherence for force plate use was 0.46 (0.31, 0.70), compared to 0.13 (0.09, 0.17) for the pitch sleeve. Potential non-response bias analysis revealed pitchers with no previous upper extremity injury in the prior season (n=14) were more likely to use the pitching sleeve beyond the first session (43%) than those who had reported a previous season UE injury at study baseline (13%). Conclusions: Variable uptake and adherence was observed across devices and players. Addressing barriers/facilitators to increase uptake and adherence is necessary to inform future studies on the effect of these devices on preventing injury using training load, kinetic, and kinematic data monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.